“The Taco or Beer Challenge couldn’t be simpler: You eat a taco and/or drink a beer, and you donate to an abortion fund. The only ice you’ll need for this challenge is the ice in your cooler, or maybe the ice in your water if you get a particularly spicy taco.”

And she claimed that abortion supporters raised $30,000 to support unregulated abortion on demand.

This month, Grimes launched a 2015 version of scarfing down a taco and guzzling beer while contributing to the slaughter of unborn children by writing:

“The 2015 Taco or Beer Challenge launches today—the anniversary of our unintentionally auspicious beginning—and lasts through September 18. Abortion funds, abortion funders, and reproductive freedom fighters around the world are hosting Taco Tuesday launch parties to celebrate. We’re calling it International Taco or Beer Challenge Day, and more than two dozen events are already planned around the world, with more to come in the next four weeks. You don’t need to complete your ToBC on Tuesday! You can do it any time before September 18…It’s about funding legal abortion care. You can’t complete the ToBC without donating to an abortion fund. It’s literally the only requirement, and therefore the most important one.”

The abortion rights group has created a website where participants can upload pictures they hope will encourage others to take part in by donating.

One image already published and tweeted today by NARAL shows a little baby, whose mom apparently believes it would have been okay to kill before his birth.

NARAL described the baby as, “The littlest Taco Or Beer Challenger.”

Makes me want to barf! If NARAL and Grimes and all their abortion loving supporters had their way babies like that would never make out of the womb to a Taco and Beer event.

Instead their tiny arms, legs, head, brains and whole bodies would be shipped off to a procurement company to be harvested for experimentation.

Speaking of harvesting baby organs, right on cue, Planned Parenthood also tweeted their support of the event:

The abortion clinic chain has been embattled in a controversy after the pro-life group, Center for Medical Progress uploaded several videos exposing their gruesome baby parts harvesting operations.

the Taco Or Beer Challenge is about encouraging people to give abortion stigma a big fucking taco-covered middle finger by being loud and proud about directly funding abortion.

Well…Ms. Grimes I won’t raise one finger for abortion, but according to this image taken from a petri dish of aborted children inside a Planned Parenthood path lab, looks like raising fingers, arms, legs, livers, kidneys, and other baby parts is what abortion is all about.

The abortion group’s 30TH ANNIVERSARY Gala event took place on March 2-3, 2015 at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C.

“I will always be grateful that I got to serve along side so many terrific pro-choice Democratic Senators, Emily’s List was there for all of us”, Clinton said in her speech.

The mission of the pro-abortion group Emily’s List, according to their website is, that they “will work for larger leadership roles for pro-choice Democratic women in our legislative bodies and executive seats so that our families can benefit from the open-minded, productive contributions that women have consistently made in office.”

In her speech, Clinton gave nods to Union activism and also said she and Chelsea will be joining efforts with Melinda Gates, another radical abortion proponent whose husband, Bill Gates has been accused of promoting population control.

Their foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds abortion will millions of dollars.

Hilly is about as pro-abortion as they come. In fact, she once congratulated the abortion rights group NARAL for successfully crafting abortion as “choice.”

“I want to congratulate NARAL for calling choice what it is, a fundamental American value, and Freedom.” ~ Hillary Clinton on the 26th anniversary of Roe. V. Wade which legalized abortion on demand.

Although Hillary Clinton has not officially thrown her hat into the Presidential race, all speculation is that she will run as the Democrat darling for the office in 2016.

To aid her in this bid, Emily’s List has rolled out a campaign called “Madam President,” which many speculate was produced to put the energy behind a 2016 run for Hillary.

“Women are the progressive standard bearers of the Democratic party and every year we add to their ranks,” the website states.

Completely discounting Conservative pro-life women, the abortion promoting group continues,”A woman in the Oval Office would prove there is literally no position too high, or too important, or too powerful for young girls and women to compete for.”

Emily’s List has uploaded a rather sexist video which features young girls giving a presidential acceptance speech thanking women who have paved the way and broken glass ceilings.

While I think the concept of empowering women and lifting the confidence of young girls is a good one, I find the boldness of liberal women’s groups who, on one hand roll out phony “war on women” themes and criticize the “all male” or “male dominated culture,” also oppose sex selection abortion, as rather hypocritical.

The imagery is subtle though as the abortion rights video ends with this:

Clinton is a staunch supporter of abortion on demand despite the settled science that life begins at conception.

Clinton once said that she admired the racist founder of abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

Sanger was a strong advocate of eugenics and forced sterilizations which targeted the poor, under privileged, and minorities.

“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision,” said Hillary Rodham Clinton, “I am really in awe of her, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life”

While Emily’s List and the media is captivated by Clinton’s call for a woman president, Hillary and her “reproductive rights” crowd have opposed every legislation that not only outlaws gender selection abortion but defunds Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is the largest chain of abortion clinics which has been caught covering for child sexual predators by not reporting the rape and sexual assault of young girls. To date, there has been no condemnation of this conduct by either Emily’s List or Hillary Clinton. A pro-life group in Texas has published actual criminal case summaries of not only Planned Parenthood doing this to female rape victims, but abortion clinics generally. Girls victimized by their male rapists were often repeatedly raped, sometimes for additional years because of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry’s callous commitment to profit over protecting these children. Read their heart wrenching stores here.

Clinton told the slobbery pro-abortion orgy at the abortion rights gala “We have to get back to investing long-term in the things that matter most, Human beings first and foremost,” she said.

Clinton mumbled on about the pro-choice or as I like to call them “pro-abortion on demand for any reason at any time, Democrats”, which she claims stand for “the kind of positive prosperity that has made it possible for so many of us to leap frog our grandparents and our parents.”

So, let’s recap, surpassing your parents and grandparents and making Human beings the top priority is now the goal of Hillary and those who promote snuffing out the life of unborn humans? Hardly!!!

A rather hypocritical tweet about the Hillary/Emily’s List/abortion love-affair event, posted by Emily’s List said this, “ICYMI: EMILY’s List Honors Hillary Clinton For “Inspiring The Next Generation”

Correction: it should read this way, “ICYMI: EMILY’s List Honors Hillary Clinton For “Helping to ABORT The Next Generation”

Pollitt believes that there is no bad reason for an abortion. She has rightly claimed that most abortions are for convenience and makes no apologies for supporting this. In addition, Pollitt has said that abortion is more moral than the decision to have a child.

Pollitt began by pointing out that when she speaks in various places, people are always asking her why she wrote her book.

She claimed her reason was obvious – because the pro-life movement is winning. And specifically winning the debate with their language. Pollitt admitted the tide was shifting toward the pro-life side of language.

That was clear after the November 2014 elections when voters rejected nearly all of Planned Parenthood’s darlings in races across the board.

“I wrote this book because all you have to do is open up the newspaper and see the way things are going,” said Pollitt, “Since, 2010 when the Republicans were so successful there have been 205 new abortion restrictions passed in the states, and, even more than the restrictions- the discourse. You can just feel it shifting. You can feel it shifting toward the anti-abortion side of language and the greater and greater defensiveness of the pro-choice side.”

The advocate of abortion-on-demand for any reason goes on to criticize abortion giant Planned Parenthood calling their decision to drop the term “pro-choice” a mistake.

Earlier this year, Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, told the New York Times,“The ‘pro-choice’ language doesn’t really resonate particularly with a lot of young women voters.”

Pollitt responded to this tactic, “ I have to say that I was really slow to pick up on this. I now think that when Planned Parenthood decided not to use the word “pro-choice” anymore…That – that was a mistake,” she tells the crowd.

NARAL’s prez spoke of “values” and “human rights” to ThinkProgress about the Men For Choice campaign- while they promote the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies with abortion and fail to speak up when abortion docs slap or kill their patients.

“Reproductive freedom is a core value that we all share. The recent attacks on our freedoms affect women first and foremost, but are an affront to all people who hold human rights as a value. We want men on our team, not only at the elected level but at the grassroots level too. This is how we show solidarity and how we win.” ~ Ilyse Hogue, NARAL’s president.

The National Abortion Rights Action League is dragging out a campaign called Men for Choice as if this is some sort of revolutionary new concept. The reality is, and polls have consistently shown, that men have always been their strongest supporters. If fact, this is a reflection of why the early feminist leaders in this country were openly opposed to the legalization of abortion. They understood that legalized abortion has nothing to do with women’s equality. Women don’t need surgery to be equal to men. What abortion is, is a safety net for sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible males. It gives these guys a way to avoid any commitments to the women whose bodies they use or any responsibility for the children they father. Not only that, but the woman are the ones who take all the risks associated with the operation.

And not only did these early feminist leaders know this, men know it too. And men like those I just described, take advantage of it. That’s why, today, American society has devolved to the point where a male’s responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy he helped to create is often defined as a willingness to pay for half the abortion and provide transportation to the clinic.

Let’s also not forget what sometimes happens when a woman refuses to jump into this safety net. This Life Dynamics report documents about 100 cases in which women who refused their partners demands to have abortions, were then brutally murdered by those men. And our research made it crystal clear that the victims named here are just the tip of an enormous iceberg.

So if you are female, before you jump into bed with someone, it would be a good idea to find out his position on abortion. After all, you don’t want to be like the women listed here and find out the hard way that the kind of man who can be pro-choice about your baby could also be pro-choice about you.

The bottom line is, if you want to submit to an abortion, then the way the law is right now you can do so. But don’t be so blind, or so pathetically naïve, that you think abortions are done for the benefit of women. After all, if the people promoting this “Men for Choice” campaign can figure out whose bread is being buttered, so can you.

The state attorney general’s office has accused a former leader of a prominent abortion-rights group of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of charitable money on shopping sprees, a Hamptons vacation rental, fine dining, hotels and other personal luxuries.

The accusation is included in a civil complaint filed in Manhattan on Thursday against Kelli Conlin, 54, who pleaded guilty a year ago to falsifying business records, a felony. Her criminal case closed without jail time after she repaid $75,000 in restitution to Naral Pro-Choice New York and its affiliated foundation, which she led from 1992 through 2010.

But David Nachman, enforcement section chief of the attorney general’s Charities Bureau, said Ms. Conlin’s spending actually amounted to “hundreds of thousands of dollars in improper benefits.”

The attorney general’s office is requesting that she repay all of it, with interest, and reimburse its own legal and investigative costs.

Here is NARAL’s Kelli Conlin supporting Obama’s Health Care Bill, according to the description on NARAL’s YouTube page: On November 16, 2009, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand held a press conference with various women’s health advocates to protest the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment and demand that health care reform does not come at the price of women’s rights. NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin spoke along with an impressive array of pro-choice advocates, including Senator Gillibrand, New York City Council Speaker Chris Quinn, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, and feminist leader Gloria Steinem.

LegalNewsline reports that According to IRS forms, Conlin allegedly grew her total compensation steadily until it reached close to $380,000 in 2010.

According to the NY Daily News, Conlin pleaded guilty in Manhattan Supreme Court last summer to a felony charge of filing a false document and agreed to pay $75,000 in restitution to her former employer.

It was a deal she worked out with District Attorney Cyrus Vance to avoid jailtime.

Schneiderman is going after what he says is the rest of the money she owes.

Schneiderman’s office reviewed the financial records of NARAL and its foundation after Conlin’s guilty plea.

Going back to 2006, investigators found that Conlin, who was paid a salary of $380,000 in her last year at Naral, had:

— Used an office credit card to make three purchases at Barney’s in early 2008 for a total of $20,446.84. Privately she admitted one of the purchases was for an “amazing” outfit for an annual NARAL fundraiser but on paper she dubbed them ‘event decor.’

— Rented a house for her partner and their twins in South Hampton for $17,000 in July 2009.

— Spent at least $50,000 in non-business related meals including 120 take-out sushi dinners and dinners at two of the city’s most expensive restaurants, Daniel and 11 Madison Park.

KATY HERINGLAKE, who once had a no-show job working in the state Capitol for state Sen. Jeff Plale, was “convicted of swiping $13,000 from National Abortion Rights Action League of Wisconsin,” Where she used to work.

Her name has been changed toKaty Venskus, where she lobbies for AT&T Wisconsin and Education Reform Now.

Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard reportedly charged Venskus, 34, of Oconomowoc, with two felonies for allegedly using her lobbying company’s credit card on more than $15,000 in personal expenses.

The complaint against Venskus, which was reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, says “she purchased $369 worth of steak from Badger Wholesale Foods for her family with an American Express card owned by Minneapolis-based Public Affairs Co., for which she had worked since January 2008. Venskus left the firm last year.”

Her lawyer, Stephen Meyer, reportedly told the Wisconsin State Journal, that the complaint contained “only allegations” and that the full story had not come out. She is quoted in the complaint as saying, “I’ve reimbursed everything, I’ve paid back all charges, and I’ve done nothing wrong.”

A watchdog report in 2010 states that Venskus, can still work the halls of the Capitol as one of at least eight registered lobbyists who have been convicted of crimes in Wisconsin. A review by the Journal Sentinel also turned up three additional lobbyists who signed deferred prosecution agreements that led to their charges being dismissed later.

At a time when special interest groups are spending record amounts for lobbyists to push their agendas – $36.2 million last year alone – Wisconsin has almost no rules or laws restricting criminals from lobbying. No lobbyist has had his or her license revoked or suspended for any reason for at least 20 years.

Looks like Planned Parenthood is dumping their affiliate PPGG just in the nick of time – should there be an investigation, after all Planned Parenthood gets millions of tax dollars per year???

Planned Parenthood Golden Gate’s former employees blame the organization’s longstanding pattern of financial mismanagement, former PPGG CEO, Dian Harrison. Because of this, the national Planned Parenthood organization has announced it will divorce itself from the networks of clinics that serve patients in five Bay Area counties, citing fiscal and administrative problems with the local organization. Effective Sept. 3, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate must operate under another name, a representative of the national organization said that Planned Parenthood Golden Gate had failed to uphold the “standards and guidelines” by which each separately incorporated affiliate must abide, but that the details of the situation were confidential.

“They were not meeting our standards for administrative and fiscal management,” said Karen Ruffato, vice president of affiliate services for the national organization.

The most recent tax documents filed with the I.R.S. suggest that PPGG has not only been losing money in recent years, but is in financial disarray. For the tax year ending June 30, 2009, it showed a loss of $2.8 million.

Yet, from financial information for the previous year, it’s unclear just how much money the organization lost because it filed three separate sets of numbers with the I.R.S. In the filings, losses ranged between nearly $1.9 and $2.8 million. Two different accounting firms signed off on the various filings.

Tax documents also show that the organization’s financial problems did not start with the catastrophic recession and California’s fiscal crisis, which has delayed MediCal reimbursements from the state. Tax documents for the year ending June 30, 2007 show that the organization lost $181,000 that year.

Yet, the organization’s fiscal problems date farther back. Documents associated with a 2004 accreditation review of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate show that the local affiliate did not meet the national federation’s financial standards for its affiliates. Of nine indicators of financial health, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate was given a “not met” rating for five of them. For instance, the affiliate had only 11.4 days of cash on hand, as opposed to the required 60 days.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America executives refused to comment on the accreditation documents on the grounds that they’re internal and confidential.On Wednesday, the charitable trusts division of the state’s attorney general’s office sent a warning letter to the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate Action Fund, the political advocacy and public policy arm of the affiliate, because the organization has failed to file copies of its tax documents with that that office for at least 10 years.
“We do not have any reports on file for them,” Rebecca MacLaren from the attorney general’s press office wrote in an e-mail.

The warning cautioned that if the organization fails to file those forms within 30 days, its registration would be suspended and officers would be personally liable for late fees.

In the letter, the clinicians detail a myriad of problems in the organization, including their concerns about “the misappropriation and mismanagement of PPGG’s funds.” The letter accuses the executive staff of profligate spending during lean times:

It is apparent that while Medical Services has been mandated and has complied with financial reform and cost savings, the Executive Administrative members have failed to adhere to their own mandate for financial restrictions. Executive staff’s personal expenditures are excessive and are not aligned with the mandatory fiscal restrictions. Flagrant use of PPGG funds to pay for personal belongings, personal services and exorbitant technology products is seemingly unchallenged and not subject to the same financial scrutiny that clinic supplies and staff salaries are, for example.

When Harrison replied to their concerns in a letter dated November 14, 2008, she assured the clinicians and doctors that administration was feeling the fiscal pain, too: “Administration has temporarily or permanently frozen a number of positions, budgets were cut, expenses were halted for a period of time and office supplies were not purchased,” she wrote.

This week’s announcement that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was severing ties with Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (PPGG) came as no surprise to some former employees, who have for months been trying to sound the alarm that the chapter was being mismanaged, had major financial problems, and was in a steep decline that could threaten important reproductive care services that low-income women rely on.

A former PPGG employee with knowledge of the organization’s internal affairs described a longstanding pattern of financial mismanagement when former president and CEO Dian Harrison was at the helm. There was widespread concern about spending on expensive marketing campaigns and lavish functions, the person said, and a high level of employee turnover and discontent.

Warning signs of financial difficulties surfaced at least a year ago. Dan Cohen, a spokesperson of the Packard Foundation — a major donor to PPGG — told the Guardian that Packard awarded PPGG a 12-month, $30,000 “organizational effectiveness” grant, which will expire in September. The grant “allows an organization to select a talented, external provider to help them think through some of these challenges,” Cohen explained. The Packard Foundation also awarded a 3-year grant for general operating support for $800,000, which will also expire next month.

Another former employee told the Guardian that she would love to discuss internal problems, but was made to sign a confidentiality agreement upon leaving the organization.

Therese Wilson, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate — who took over PPGG when Harrison left last year on medical leave — did not return repeated calls seeking comment.

An internal PPGG document provided to the Guardian displays the agency’s on-hand cash reserves as compared with other affiliates, suggesting that the reserve ratios were at or below the minimum required by the national Planned Parenthood federation for all but one year from 1998 to 2007 — and well below that of other affiliates of similar size. That is a key requirement for meeting accreditation standards.

When we asked Elizabeth Toledo, a PPFA representative, about this apparent pattern she said she could not comment because she had not seen the documents. She also said the accreditation reviews were confidential. “Understanding the true financial picture for health care providers takes a very in-depth evaluation,” Toledo said. “PPFA and PPGG were working together over the last few years to resolve fiscal challenges.”

Despite delays at the state level in awarding nonprofit funding and the loss of support from the national organization, Toledo and a union representative for PPGG employees both said they believe the clinics will continue serving patients under a different name.

“They plan to stay open, and employees are planning to stay,” said SEIU Local 1021 representative Sarah Sherpun-Zimmer, who has been a union rep for PPGG employees for the last two years. “Folks are really happy working there and they feel like it’s going in a good direction.”

PPGG operated eight clinics, which will lose their Planned Parenthood accreditation Sept. 3, effectively severing their ties to a trusted entity that thousands of low-income women rely upon for birth control, abortion procedures, and other forms of reproductive health care. PPGG operates clinics in San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Sonoma, Marin, and Mendocino counties, serving about 55,000 women per year.

Roughly 92 percent of the clients they serve live at or below the federal poverty line, according to PPGG’s 2008 annual report.

Planned Parenthood affiliates Mar Monte and Shasta Diablo are in the process of hatching plans for taking over some of the eight affected clinics or otherwise growing their own operations to cover any gaps in service area, according to Toledo. She said neighboring affiliates are in a position financially to be able to cover a wider territory and added that they have been in “expansion mode,” adding new clinics over the past couple years.

“It’s unusual to have a disaffiliation,” she said. “But it’s not unusual for national committees to have a reallocation of service area. That part is well-practiced.” Toledo added that “Every effort possible will be made” to ensure continuity of care.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

One of the nation’s best-known groups of health centers has permanently shut down a cluster of clinics in Broward and Palm Beach counties.

Planned Parenthood officially severed its ties Monday with five local clinics — four in Broward and one in Boca Raton — whose top administrator has acknowledged a history of “terrible mismanagement and possibly fraud.”

The disaffiliation allowed the national organization to wash its hands of the local chapter once known as Planned Parenthood of South Palm Beach and Broward Counties.

The chapter is dealing with many problems, including harassment complaints and possible misuse of nearly $450,000 — slightly less than they received in public funding in 2005.

“All these issues are now issues that they will have to face without us,” said Karen Ruffato, vice president of operations for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The attitude has angered Ruth Lynch, the former Broward chapter’s CEO, who said the national organization bailed out before the local chapter could resolve its problems.

Lynch, who replaced former CEO Mary Capobianco in March, said that within two weeks of her arrival she found she could not account for $440,000 of the chapter’s $3 million budget.

“We take responsibility that there was horrible management,” Lynch said. “But that was then. This is now. We have a new board.”

CHAPTER’S PLANS

Lynch said that the chapter’s board of trustees plans to eventually open and continue medical services at the five clinics — in Oakland Park, Fort Lauderdale, Pembroke Pines, Deerfield Beach and Boca Raton — but without the trusted name of Planned Parenthood, one of the nation’s most recognized clinics in the field of reproductive heathcare.

“We don’t feel this was simple disaffiliation, we feel this was a hostile takeover,” Lynch said.

“And it was more about the Planned Parenthood trademark than it was about helping the community.”

At least 16,000 people used the five clinics for services such as breast exams, testing for HIV and abortions. In 2005, it received $500,000 in taxpayer funding.

HARSH REVIEW

The disbanding of the relationship ended a months-long back and forth between the Broward chapter and the national organization, which temporarily shut down the clinics in March after delivering a harsh review about the chapter’s administration.

Popular employees were fired. An employee alleged sexual harassment against a former CEO, Capobianco. The local board was investigating a rumor that its 2006 annual report was plagiarized.

SHUT DOWN

Ruffato said Planned Parenthood wanted to disaffiliate from the Broward chapter as soon as possible.

By March, the clinics were temporarily shut down.

They began the process in April to permanently strip the five clinics of the Planned Parenthood name.

Instead, Ruffato said they entrusted the more-reputable Planned Parenthood of Greater Miami, Palm Beach and the Treasure Coast to open one clinic in Broward and one in Boca Raton.

Ruffato said the Greater Miami chapter is one of the country’s best.

‘UNFORTUNATE’

“This is a very rare situation and a very unfortunate situation,” Ruffato said. “And as sad and as hard as moving through a disaffiliation is, I believe our ultimate responsibility is to the mission. And ultimately we need to make sure that your community clinic has the best healthcare and meets our high standards.”

For now, Planned Parenthood is concentrating on replacing the five clinics with at least two, said Judith Selzer, spokeswoman for the Greater Miami chapter. Officers plan to select one site by next month.

Selzer said they will add clinics “as quickly and swiftly as the community needs.”

The chapter plans to include Broward residents on the staff and board of trustees.

Over the past six months, abortion advocates and their allies have begun insisting in the media and in communications with supporters that the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA), while “important,” is not an immediate priority and that concerned Americans have overreacted to a piece of legislation that has not even been introduced in the current Congress. And despite having control of Congress and the Executive Branch, some have even appeared to confess they do not have the support needed for passage.

What are the reasons for this sudden and very public change of tune? Why—when they have President Obama’s promise to finally enact FOCA, 20 years after it was first proposed—do they appear to be quickly conceding defeat?

This apparent back-pedaling on a long-established priority is a testament to the ferocious opposition engendered by this radical federal power-grab masquerading as common legislation. However, as history repeatedly shows, abortion advocates’ apparent concessions should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism. Now more than ever we need to beware of “FOCA-by-Stealth”: attempts by the Administration, Congress, and abortion advocates to enact FOCA piecemeal while purposefully attempting to deflect—or at least neutralize—public opposition to their far-reaching abortion-on-demand agenda.

The Administration and abortion advocates have stolen a page from the successful pro-life playbook of incremental strategy. However, instead of targeted laws designed to fence in the abortion license and to protect women from the negative impact of abortion, they are using a variety of executive, budgetary, and legislative means to realize their “full vision of reproductive freedom” —code words for unrestricted, unregulated, unapologetic, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

Recognizing an Ally, Abortion Advocates Waste No Time Making Demands

In December 2008 (just one month after the election), a coalition of pro-abortion groups—including Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—gave an expansive set of “marching orders” to the Obama Administration. In a 55-page memorandum subsequently posted on the Obama Transition Team’s website, the coalition urged the incoming Administration to, among other things:

• Rescind the Mexico City Policy first implemented by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 to prohibit federal taxpayer funding of programs and organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas.
• Restore federal taxpayer funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which actively promotes abortion worldwide and is arguably complicit in the continued enforcement of restrictive population control programs and forced abortions.
• Remove U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restrictions on minors’ access to over-the-counter “emergency contraceptives” (also known as Plan B). Then-existing FDA protocols required girls under 18 years of age to have a valid prescription for this potentially-dangerous drug.
• Reverse the December 2008 decision by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requiring recipients of certain federal funding certify compliance with existing federal laws protecting healthcare professionals who are morally opposed to promoting or providing abortions or contraceptives.
• Appoint federal judges—including US Supreme Court justices—who support abortion rights and would interpret that “right” in an increasingly expansive and radical manner.
• Increase Title X family planning funding, which provides funding to Planned Parenthood, from $300 million in fiscal year 2009 to at least $700 million in 2010.
• Repeal the Hyde Amendment, which limits federal taxpayer funding for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women.
• Provide federal taxpayer funding of abortions for federal employees and their dependents, members of the Armed Forces and their dependents, residents of the District of Columbia, Peace Corps volunteers, Native American women, and women in federal prisons.
• Increase federal funding of international family planning programs from $461 million in fiscal year 2009 to $1 billion for 2010.
Finally and predictably, the document also specifically called on President Obama to take the lead in calling for Congress to pass the “Freedom of Choice Act” and—as he has already promised—sign it into law once it arrives at his desk.

Each of the demands listed above—and others contained in this controversial and extensive wish list—embody the spirit of FOCA and represent incremental but critical steps toward implementing its radical agenda. Sadly, the Obama Administration and its allies in Congress have acted quickly to meet and even exceed the demands of abortion activists. In just its first six months, the new Administration has met many of these demands and already earnestly begun action on the remainder.

How Is FOCA’s Expansive and Radical Agenda Being Implemented?

Despite the increasing backlash against both FOCA and the Administration’s apparent desire to centralize power and authority in the federal government at the expense of the States and the people, abortion advocates within and outside the Administration have not been dissuaded from their goal of unfettered, federal government-controlled, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand. Instead, they are clearly determined to pursue what they believe is the path of least resistance: FOCA-by-Stealth.

Rather than a direct and possibly losing battle and debate over FOCA as a whole, they are resorting to a strategy of incremental and relentless implementation of the principles, spirit, and intent of FOCA. In pursuit of this strategy, they are already using a variety of tools including Executive Orders; Executive Branch appointments; federal budget appropriations; federal legislation; action on long-standing budgetary riders; efforts to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system; and even potential Senate ratification of international conventions to advance and fund a radical pro-abortion agenda.

Executive Orders

American Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789; most of these orders have set the policies of executive departments or otherwise directed the activities of Executive Branch officials. Because they are an efficient and effective means for the Administration to unilaterally further its policy goals, Executive Orders have often been controversial. Only days into his term, President Obama made use of an Executive Order to further FOCA-by-Stealth.

On January 23, 2009—just three days after his inauguration—President Obama signed an Executive Order to repeal the Mexico City Policy prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funding of international family planning programs that promote and perform abortions overseas. Among the groups denied funding under this former policy was the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the parent organization of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (more commonly known as “Planned Parenthood”).

In a statement released the next day, President Obama blithely ignored the mounting evidence of abortion’s negative impact on women and the fact that this funding is often used by groups such as IPPF to force abortion on unwilling nations and cultures. Instead, he couched his action in terms of its potential economic impact and his desire to end the “culture war” over abortion, stating:

It is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development. For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us. I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.
This statement is eerily reminiscent of then-Presidential candidate Obama’s speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in July 2007, when he told cheering abortion supporters he remains “absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties,” and it is “time to turn the page” since he and other abortion supporters are “tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff.”

Not coincidentally, in this same speech he also promised “[o]n this fundamental issue [abortion], I will not yield,” and the “first thing” he would do as President was “sign the ‘Freedom of Choice Act’.”

Presidents also often use Executive Orders to appoint or create various groups to advise them on certain policy decisions. In this vein, on March 11, 2009, President Obama established a new “White House Council on Women and Girls” to “provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families.” Among its priorities is to “improve women’s health care.” Given that the Council’s Executive Director is Tina Tchen, former vice-president of the pro-abortion National Organization for Women (NOW), it is safe to assume that the Council’s vision of women’s healthcare will undoubtedly include unfettered access to abortion-on-demand.

Executive Appointments

The President has the responsibility to make a wide range of executive appointments, including Cabinet members, ambassadors, and other Executive Branch officials. These individuals are charged with implementing the President’s policies on a variety of topics, including abortion and important civil rights such as healthcare freedom of conscience.

Among the appointed positions with a direct impact on abortion-related policies are the Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Commissioner of the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Surgeon General.

On March 1, 2009, President Obama nominated pro-abortion Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebilius to serve as Secretary of HHS. Confirmed on April 28, 2009, she is now in a position to profoundly influence American healthcare—including federal and state policies regarding abortion, healthcare rights of conscience, bioethics and biotechnologies, and end-of-life issues.
As HHS Secretary, Sebelius will make important policy determinations including:

• Whether to rescind, modify, or retain HHS rules requiring recipients of HHS funding to certify their compliance with existing federal laws protecting healthcare freedom of conscience. In March 2009, HHS announced its intent to rescind these protective rules and requested public comment on the rules and their implications.
• Whether to rescind approval for or, at a minimum, review the safety and efficacy of RU-486 (“the abortion pill”), which has killed at least 7 women in the U.S. since it was approved by the FDA in September 2000.
• Whether to actively promote further federal funding of abortion-on-demand and contraceptives (including Plan B) as a component of “healthcare reform.”
Sadly, Secretary Sebelius’s extensive public record demonstrates she is an ardent supporter of abortion-on-demand and gives strong indications that she will continue to implement and follow strongly pro-abortion policies during her tenure as HHS Secretary.

In the 1980s and 1990s then-State Representative Sebelius voted to weaken or eliminate even such modest abortion-related measures as parental notification, reflection periods, and informed consent— under U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, these are all constitutional measures.

However, her record as Governor of Kansas was—in substantial part—even more extreme in its support for abortion. She routinely opposed or vetoed abortion-accountability bills, including medically-supported clinic regulation legislation which she vetoed in both 2003 and 2005. The need for this critical legislation was predicated, in large part, on evidence of shocking conditions in Kansas abortion clinics. For example, two inspections of the same Topeka abortion clinic discovered fetal remains stored in the same refrigerator as food; a dead rodent in the clinic hallway; overflowing, uncovered disposal bins containing medical waste; unlabeled, pre-drawn syringes with controlled substances in an unlocked refrigerator; improperly labeled and expired medicines; a carpeted floor in a surgical procedure room; and visible dirt and general disarray throughout the clinic. Dr. Krishna Rajanna, who operated the unsafe and unsanitary clinic, also consistently violated practice guidelines for conscious sedation.

In 2008, she vetoed a measure that would have strengthened the state’s existing parental notification law by 1) requiring any adult accompanying a minor show identification, declare in writing his/her relationship to the minor, and identify the putative father of the unborn child; 2) requiring the minor to show some form of photo identification proving identity and place of residence; and 3) if the minor chooses to seek a judicial waiver of the law’s requirements, prohibiting any employee of an abortion provider or clinic from assisting her with the requisite court filings and proceedings.

More shocking is her continuing and unyielding support for late-term abortions, including post-viability abortions. Between 2006 and 2009, she vetoed measures:
• Requiring explicit and medically-supported reasons for late-term abortions;
• Requiring abortion providers to report the diagnosis or the nature of the condition which necessitated a post-viability abortion;
• Permitting injunctive relief for either a completed or about-to-be-performed illegal late-term abortion; and
• Adding certain prosecutors (in addition to the Attorney General) to investigate and pursue violations of existing restrictions on late-term abortions.

As Governor of Kansas, Secretary Sebelius also appointed radical abortion supporters to important state positions. For example, she appointed a former abortion clinic “escort” John Carmichael to the state Human Rights Commission; however, his name was quietly withdrawn ten months later in May 2008.

She further appointed political supporter and abortionist Howard Ellis to serve on the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts after he surrendered his medical license in Missouri rather than face disciplinary charges. Ellis resigned under pressure, and two months later he was charged by the Board with attempting to persuade a physician to falsify records.

Unfortunately, Secretary Sebelius is not the only abortion-supporter that President Obama has appointed to an important healthcare policy position within his Administration.

On March 14, 2009, President Obama nominated former New York City health commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, to head the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA is “responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.” It “is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.”

In direct contradiction of these mandates, one of Dr. Hamburg’s first decisions as FDA Commissioner was to forego an appeal of an adverse decision in Tummino v. Torti, a case in which a federal judge ruled that the FDA must make Plan B (or so-called “emergency contraception”) available over-the-counter to girls under the age of 18, despite a utter lack of evidence showing that the drug is safe for use by minors.

Moreover, in the current Administration, even the Secretary of State is expected to use her office to promote abortion-on-demand. In the face of increasing threats to U.S. security, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has inexplicably promised that promoting “reproductive rights” (i.e., abortion-on-demand) will be at the top of the Administration’s international agenda. On March 30, 2009, Secretary Clinton received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization’s founder, an avowed proponent of race-based eugenics. In her acceptance speech, Secretary Clinton stated, “reproductive rights . . . will be a key to the foreign policy of the United States” during the Obama Administration and that she was proud President Obama had already repealed the Mexico City Policy. She also opined that Planned Parenthood is “one of the great exports that America has” and she looks forward to partnering with Planned Parenthood in effectuating President Obama’s foreign policy.

Under President Obama and Secretary Clinton, prominent abortion advocates have been appointed to critical State Department positions. For example, on March 6, 2009, President Obama and Secretary Clinton announced that Melanie Verveer would act as “Ambassador at large for global women’s issues.” Verveer is the co-founder of Vital Voices, a pro-abortion international women’s organization.

Further, Harold Koh, the President’s Legal Advisor to the State Department, has long advocated the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), an international convention that has been used to force unwilling nations – principally in the developing world – to sanction or embrace abortion-on-demand or face international sanctions or other negative consequences. Notably, Koh, a former Dean of Yale Law School, is also considered by many as a possible future U.S. Supreme Court nominee.
Department of Justice Appointments

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is charged with enforcing federal law and ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. To effectuate these important tasks, the President appoints the U.S. Attorney General and other senior officials at DOJ, including the Solicitor General and the head of the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Importantly, the Solicitor General conducts all litigation on behalf of the United States before the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) and supervises other federal appellate court litigation directly implicating the interests of the Administration and the American people. In doing so, the Solicitor General routinely files briefs and presents oral argument in important cases before the USSC, including those involving the constitutionality of abortion-related restrictions and regulations. Thus, the Solicitor General is in a unique position to support or oppose such restrictions and regulations and to influence the way the USSC views such laws.

Prior to his inauguration, on January 5, 2009, then-President-elect Obama nominated Elena Kagan, then-Dean of Harvard Law School, to serve as Solicitor General. She was confirmed by the Senate on March 19, 2009. Ironically, Solicitor General Kagan, by her own admission, has very little litigation experience, but she is a strong abortion rights advocate who, for example, supports the use of taxpayer funding to pay for abortions.

Later, on March 11, 2009, President Obama nominated David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General, essentially Solicitor General’s Kagan’s second-in-command. Notably, in 1992, Ogden filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Psychological Association in the landmark abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey which was dismissive of abortion’s damaging effects on the psychiatric health of women.

However, President Obama’s selection to head the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is even more troubling. According to DOJ’s website, the OLC:

[P]rovides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and offices within the Department . . . The Office also is responsible for providing legal advice to the Executive Branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality.

Given their sweeping and critical responsibilities, the head and staff of OLC are supposed to be apolitical and academically disciplined.

President Obama has nominated Dawn Johnsen, a professor of constitutional law from the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University, to serve as the head of OLC. Prior to her academic career, Johnsen served as a staff counsel fellow with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and then for five years with the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

In 1989, as the legal director of NARAL, Johnsen filed an amicus brief in the USSC case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, a constitutional challenge to a Missouri law that restricted the use of state taxpayer funds and other state resources for abortions.

In her brief, Johnsen argued that any restrictions making abortion less accessible are tantamount to “involuntary servitude” because they require “a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest [in the life of the unborn.]” She continued that, in effect, a woman “is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends.” Such “forced pregnancy,” she contended, reduces women to “fetal containers” and violates the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery. Fortunately, the USSC gave no credence to these radical and ridiculous arguments.

In 2005, then-Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), an avowed abortion supporter, gave a speech calling for policy changes so abortion “[did] not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.” In response, Johnsen alleged that Senator Clinton had taken a “step in the wrong direction” by arguing for such policies. Instead, Johnsen believes “[p]rogressives must not portray all abortions as tragedies.”

Further, despite USSC decisions upholding the constitutionality of informed consent laws with 24-hour reflection periods, parental involvement laws, and bans on partial-birth abortion, Johnsen opposes them and continues to argue they are not constitutionally permissible. For example, in a 2006 op-ed opposing Justice Samuel Alito’s confirmation, she argued that opposition to all restrictions on abortion—not just acceptance of Roe v. Wade—should be a litmus test for judicial nominees. To Johnson, “[t]he notion of legal restrictions as some kind of reasonable ‘compromise’—perhaps to help make abortion ‘safe, legal, and rare’… proves nonsensical.”

Critically, Solicitor General Kagan and Johnsen – if ultimately confirmed by the Senate – will be in positions to argue against the constitutionality of laws regulating or restricting abortion—including those laws the USSC has previously determined to be constitutional and which are supported by a majority of Americans—and to negatively influence the actions and positions of the White House and other Executive Branch departments.
Judicial Appointments

The President has a unique opportunity to influence a variety of legal and policy debates and decisions through his judicial appointments. He appoints all federal district court and appellate judges, including USSC justices. By virtue of the lifetime tenure of federal judges, the President can exert this influence long after he leaves office.

For this reason and others, a candidate’s judicial philosophy is typically of significant interest during a Presidential campaign. During his campaign, President Obama publicly stated he would appoint USSC justices in the mold of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, two of the Court’s most ardent abortion rights supporters who, for example, voted to strike down the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. President Obama further opined he finds himself compelled “to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”

True to his expressed intent to appoint pro-abortion judges who will interpret the American Constitution in light of ever-evolving circumstances and principles rather than the original intent of the Framers, President Obama used his first judicial appointment to select a radically pro-abortion judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. On March 17, 2009, the President nominated David Hamilton, a federal district court judge from Indiana, as well as a former Vice President for Litigation and board member of the Indiana branch of the ACLU and a former fundraiser for Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Hamilton was first appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 even though the American Bar Association (ABA) had given him a “not qualified” rating.

As a federal judge, Hamilton issued multiple rulings over seven years preventing Indiana’s informed consent law—a law that fully complied with the USSC’s requirements for such laws (as set out in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision)—from going into effect. The Seventh Circuit—the same court to which he is nominated—later reversed him, stating “[n]o court anywhere in the country (other than one district judge in Indiana [i.e., Hamilton]) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey.”

In response to Hamilton’s nomination, the New York Times opined that Hamilton’s nomination was meant to send a signal as to the types of judges President Obama would appoint. Thus, it is clear President Obama will appoint hard-core abortion proponents—judges who will read the spirit and intent of FOCA into the U.S. Constitution and invalidate medically-supported and common-sense regulations or restrictions on the abortion license—to the federal bench and to the US Supreme Court.

President Obama’s first nomination to the Supreme Court validates this fear. Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record on abortion strongly suggests that she will be even more extreme on the issue than Justice David Souter, who she has been nominated to replace. For example, while Judge Sotomayor was on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), it filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court

• That, in essence, called upon the Supreme Court to read the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) into the Constitution, protecting abortion as a fundamental right and applying the most stringent level of judicial review – known as “strict scrutiny” — to strike down common-sense abortion regulations and restrictions supported by the vast majority of Americans such as informed consent, parental involvement, and bans on partial-birth abortions.
• That urged the Supreme Court to strike down a Missouri law requiring viability testing before certain abortions — calling such testing “useless and expensive.”
• That declared that it “oppose[d] any efforts to . . . in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade;” compared abortion to the specifically-enumerated, First Amendment right to free speech, and argued that any “burden” on the right to abortion was unconstitutional.
• That characterized informed consent requirements as “intrusive,” “distorted,” and “designed to frighten women from obtaining abortions.”
• That argued that all “medically necessary” abortions (essentially, code words for abortion-on-demand) must be publicly funded and that failure to do so was “discriminat[ory]” and a violation of constitutional equal protection guarantees.

President Obama has also appointed advisors who can be expected to ensure radical choices for the judiciary. For example, on March 12, 2009, President Obama nominated Ronald Weich as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs. This position is responsible for advising the President on the selection and successful nomination of federal judges. During the Bush Administration, testifying before Congress about the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” which passed Congress with large bipartisan majorities, Weich said that the Act was “just one more step in the anti-abortion movement’s methodical strategy to humanize fetuses, marginalize women, demonize abortion providers, and make the image of abortion less palatable to the American people.”

Federal Spending and Other Budgetary Measures

A deep economic recession, burgeoning federal deficits, and budget cutbacks in critical areas such as national defense are not dissuading abortion advocates from demanding increased taxpayer funding for their radical abortion-on-demand agenda. Unfortunately, Congress and the Administration are more than happy to comply.

On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed the fiscal 2009 Omnibus spending measure. This $410 billion measure needed to keep the federal government functioning through September 2009 also included significant distributions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to international family planning programs—programs that often promote abortion and sterilization as effective and acceptable means of family planning.

First, the measure allocated $50 million to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for its work in more than 150 countries around the world. The UNFPA’s stated mission is to promote the right of every woman, man, and child to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity. UNFPA claims to support countries in “using population data for policies and programs to reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.” However, UNFPA is on record arguing that abortion is an appropriate solution to child poverty and has also been complicit in brutal population control programs in China, North Korea, and elsewhere that include forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and other human rights abuses.

Further, the spending measure provided $545 million for a variety of bilateral and multilateral family planning and “reproductive health” [i.e., abortion-promoting] programs worldwide. This allocation is $82 million over 2008 funding levels and a 66 percent increase over the budget request made by the outgoing Bush Administration.

Not surprisingly, officials from the United Nations and other international family planning groups welcomed the new Administration’s support. For example, Tod Preston, Vice President for U.S. Government Affairs at Population Action International, an American-based group supporting population control efforts, enthused that the new Administration’s actions “represent[ed] the last vestiges of a failed effort by the previous administration to decimate U.S. family planning and reproductive health programs.”

During the Congressional debate over this measure, the Senate rejected (by a vote of 38 to 55) Senator Roger Wicker’s (R-MS) attempt to protect US taxpayers from funding coercive abortions through UNFPA. The Wicker Amendment would have restored the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which has been in place since 1985 and which denies federal funding to organizations or programs the President determines support or participate in a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
Action on Budgetary Riders

The repeal of established provisions and policies prohibiting or limiting federal funding of abortion is a top priority of pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. Often called “pro-life riders,” abortion advocates want Congress to eliminate these provisions and policies and quickly authorize the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion-on-demand.
Appropriations provisions or riders prohibiting or limiting the use of taxpayer funding for abortion and contraception are already under attack and many remain vulnerable. Importantly, these riders are not permanent law and must be regularly renewed by Congress to remain in effect.

Congress has already rendered the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funding of programs that include coercive abortions, impotent (by the passage of the fiscal 2009 Omnibus spending measure). Later, in June 2009, Congress began debating the Obama Administration’s proposal to use taxpayer funding to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia, invalidating the long-standing Dornan Amendment that prohibit such practices. Clearly, negative action on additional riders like the Hyde Amendment, the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, and others is not far behind.

The Hyde Amendment, first enacted in 1976, prohibits Medicaid and any other federal program from funding abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the mother’s life. Meanwhile, the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, first enacted in 2004, protects the freedom of conscience of healthcare providers by prohibiting programs that receive federal funds from discriminating against healthcare providers who refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for abortions. Notably, both of these important riders have survived multiple court challenges and been deemed constitutional. However, pro-abortion groups are actively lobbying for their repeal and, unfortunately, Congress and the White House are likely to comply.

Federal Legislation

Members of the 111th Congress have already introduced at least 14 measures relating to abortion and family planning services. Nine of these measures are demonstrably pro-life, while five would provide expanded funding for “comprehensive family planning services” (including abortion) and are likely to result in an increased taxpayer-provided income stream for groups like Planned Parenthood.

Interestingly, the White House, Congressional leaders, and the media are expressing the most positive interest and attention to measures that would increase taxpayer funding of groups like Planned Parenthood. The most notable of these measures is the “Prevention First Act” (S. 22 and H.R. 463) sponsored by Senate Majority Harry Reid and nearly 150 other members of Congress and championed by Planned Parenthood. The “Prevention First Act” has several key components:

• Making Title X of the “Health and Human Services Act” a permanent program and providing it with at least $700 million in taxpayer funding each year. Since its inception in 1970, Title X has been a major funding source for Planned Parenthood. However, like many pro-life appropriations riders, Title X is not currently a permanent program and must be reauthorized every year. Under the “Prevention First Act,” Planned Parenthood stands to more than double the taxpayer funding it currently receives under Title X.
• Mandating health insurance plans covering prescription drugs also cover contraceptives. There are no exemptions for religious employers or others with conscientious objections to contraception.
• Creating an educational program to promote “emergency contraception.” Notably, Planned Parenthood and its affiliates are major distributors of “emergency contraception,” often selling it at a significant mark-up.
• Removing federal funding from hospitals that fail to provide “emergency contraception” to sexual assault victims. Again, there are no exemptions for Catholic or other religiously-affiliated hospitals.
Efforts to Reform the Healthcare System

President Obama has consistently maintained that a complete overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system is one of his top priorities. He has already taken steps to bring about his expansive vision of universal healthcare coverage, including comprehensive abortion and family planning services funded by taxpayer dollars.

On March 5, 2009, President Obama hosted the White House Health Care Summit, purporting to bring together 150 healthcare leaders, including key members of his Cabinet, White House staffers, members of Congress, and others to discuss how to reform the nation’s healthcare system. Among those invited to participate was Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, along with other abortion supporters. Notably, the President asked no pro-life healthcare group to participate.

During the Summit, Richards opined that healthcare reform must ensure women have “access to comprehensive family planning and reproductive healthcare”—more code words for unrestricted and unregulated abortion-on-demand. She also promoted universal healthcare including abortion services funded by taxpayer dollars. Notably, this was not Richards’ first opportunity to expound on her vision of comprehensive, taxpayer-funded “reproductive healthcare.” In August 2008, she addressed the Platform Committee of Democratic National Committee, then-chaired by Janet Napolitano, now a member of President Obama’s Cabinet.

Interestingly, as the debate over healthcare reform has begun in earnest, pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America have become alarmed over any suggestion that government healthcare programs might not include expansive and generous coverage for “reproductive healthcare” including unfettered abortion-on-demand and have aggressively urged their supporters to contact Congress demanding such coverage.

Potential Ratification of International Conventions & Treaties

The U.S. Constitution gives the Senate power to ratify international treaties and conventions and make them binding on American law and citizens. They may ratify treaties and conventions with or without “reservations”: unilateral statements purporting to exclude or modify the legal obligations of the treaty or convention and its effects on the reserving nation or government.

In recent years, a variety of international conventions—many of them originating with the United Nations—have been developed and have as their stated or implied purpose the expansion of abortion rights and the repeal of laws regulating or limiting abortion. To date, the U.S. has not ratified any of these conventions, but Americans cannot underestimate the negative impact of potential ratification.

In February 2009, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)—a vocal supporter of abortion-on-demand—promised to call on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department to complete their review of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and transmit it to the Senate for immediate ratification.

If ratified, this international convention could severely undermine parents and their inherent right and responsibility to care for and raise their children without unneeded governmental oversight and interference. It would also directly undermine U.S. sovereignty and the enforceability of American laws, subjecting U.S. citizens and American laws to the administrative oversight—and even veto power—of the United Nations and its unelected bureaucrats.

A fundamental presumption of UNCRC is that parental responsibility exists only insofar as parents are willing to further the independent choices of their children. To advance the convention’s purposes—seeking to make children (even young children) autonomous from their parents and arguably supplanting parents with the State—the convention grants to children a list of inviolable and radical rights including “the right to privacy,” “the right to freedom of thought and association,” and “the right to freedom of expression.”

Specifically, the Convention’s right to privacy provisions could be used to undermine and eliminate laws mandating parental involvement in a minor daughter’s abortion decision. Article 16 of the convention purports to invest a minor with an absolute right to privacy, which, in light of the U.N.’s historic support for unfettered abortion-on-demand, would necessarily permit a minor to obtain an abortion without the benefit of parental involvement and even without her parents ever knowing about the abortion. Article 19 of the Convention permits the “identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up” of those—including parents—who interfere with a child’s fundamental rights, including the right to privacy.
UNCRC is not the only international convention yet to be ratified by the Senate that embodies the spirit of FOCA and implements key components of its radical abortion-on-demand agenda. Abortion advocates and their allies have long agitated for the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
CEDAW was signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, but it has never been ratified by the Senate. Notably, while the word “abortion” does not appear in the actual text, Article 12 of CEDAW asserts that ratifying nations “shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.” Many official bodies—both inside and outside the U.N.—interpret this Article and other related provisions to condemn all limitations or restrictions on abortion as per se discrimination against women.

In practice, U.N committees and bureaucrats have consistently used CEDAW as the basis for criticizing member nations and pressuring them to weaken or repeal laws restricting abortion, to provide public funding of abortion, and to even eliminate laws protecting the conscience rights of healthcare providers who decline to participate in abortions.

Not surprisingly, support for CEDAW is strong and widespread among abortion advocates. For example, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), a New York-based group dedicated to using “the law to advance reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right that all governments are legally obligated to protect, respect, and fulfill,” has consistently called for the ratification of CEDAW with “no reservations” so that its spirit and intent could be fully implemented in the U.S. Notably, CRR actively opposes any limits or restrictions on abortion and regularly files federal and state lawsuits seeking to derail laws regulating abortion.

Moreover, CRR and other abortion advocates routinely argue that CEDAW cements abortion as a fundamental human right and mandates unfettered abortion-on-demand in the U.S. and elsewhere. For example, in their 2001 lawsuit in federal district court seeking to strike down the Mexico City Policy, CRR cited U.N. conventions and customary international law as support for the bold assertion that “abortion is the law of the world.”

Clearly, with abortion supporters currently in control of the Senate, the ratification of UNCRC, CEDAW, and international conventions promoting abortion-on-demand is a distinct and troubling possibility—one that would effectively usher in an era of unregulated and unrestricted abortion in America and invalidate any federal or state limitation on or common-sense regulation of abortion.
Conclusion

Recently, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), a chief Congressional proponent of FOCA, promised that FOCA would be introduced in the 111th Congress “sooner rather than later,” but he did not elaborate on specific plans for its introduction and debate. However, it is clear from the actions of the Obama Administration, Congress, and their pro-abortion allies that a campaign to implement FOCA-by-Stealth is already well underway. If we are to effectively counter this radical agenda, we must remain vigilant and continue to speak out against any legislation, policy, or action by the Administration or Congress that furthers the spirit of FOCA and its radical vision of an America (and a world) of unrestricted, unregulated, unapologetic, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

The Administration, Congress, and abortion advocates are counting on the economy and other pressing issues to divert the attention of the American people so they can surreptitiously and with little resistance advance their radical pro-abortion agenda. We cannot afford them success. Future generations are literally counting on us to remain motivated and vigilant against this discretely and stealthily advancing culture of death.